"It’s very satisfying to meet a lying anti capitalist lib and call him a punk and a liar to his face."
Sure it is....
Posted on 05/27/2009 8:15:29 AM PDT by Lafayette
In order to bridge the current gulf between corporate management and corporate employees, I suggest the following:
1 The Corporation is a creature of the state, and the state has the authority to define the constraints under which corporations operate.
2 There is presently a gulf between the management of large corporations and the rank and file employees. Many corporate managers make decisions without regard to employees or the long term impact of those decisions on employees. While the near-term impact of those decisions on the bottom line might appear positive, the long-term impact might be highly negative.
3 Employees of large corporations are as (or more) likely to know if corporate managers are doing a good job than shareholders or others outside a corporation.
By virtue of the above it would be reasonable for the state to require of corporations with 1000 employees or more that the senior managers be subject to an annual secret vote of confidence by the employees of that corporation. Failure to obtain a 50% approval rating should require immediate dismissal.
“Save the utter idiocy of opinions like this for DU, not the “News/Activism” section of FR.”
....where we must worship corporations unquestioningly.
The problem is not that corporate managers make decisions without regard to the employees, but that corporate managers make decisions without regard to the owners—the shareholders—for whom they are in theory fiduciaries (or to use an old-fashioned word for the same thing, stewards).
We do not, by and large, have a syndicalist economy, but a capitalist economy. Certainly employee buyouts, employee compensation paid in part in common stock and the holding of common stock in union pension funds have introduced elements of syndicalism into our economy. Your suggestion, that management serve at the pleasure of, and work for the benefit of, the rank-and-file employees, is just a different means of abolishing capitalism, as it makes the effective owners of the corporation the employees, rather than the shareholders.
A mixed capitalist/syndicalist economy might actually be the optimal type of economy, in that pure syndicalism has problems with capital formation, while pure capitalism, once the ownership of capital has become as diffuse as it has so that major blocks of stock are voted by fund managers, rather than wealthy individuals with a personal interest in the corporation’s success, suffers from the problem of bad stewards—managers who act in their own self-interest, rather than the corporation’s interest—which might be constrained by an element of responsibility to the employees. But your proposal goes too far.
|
Who is John Galt?
I will never buy another appliance manufactured by an American corporation because American corporate management is only interested in making money in the short term. Every American-made appliance I have purchased in the last 10 years has had a problem.
As soon as a corporation becomes big enough (and 1000 employees is big enough), the emphasis of the management seems to be more about THEM and THEIR compensation and THEIR plan, than about producing products that people are willing to buy.
Pardon my stupid error.
It should have been “No corporation is a democracy.”
Nope.
Corporations belong the shareholders, not the employees. The shareholders already have a vote.
If the employees have ‘no confidence’ they’re free to look for another job.
dude look up hyperbole in the dictionary. It’s a good thing you didn’t call me a liar to my face Mr. internet muscles.
You don't understand the difference between freedom and a democracy.
Patrick Henry did.
My tag line is better:
If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.
In a true democracy, freedom is not guaranteed to the individual. The citizenry can go nuts on some topic and destroy individual freedom. The possibility of a hunting ban is an example.
I wonder what year of high school you are in.
|
Well, we can’t settle things the old-fashioned way online, now can we?
You appear to be a very rude person, btw. The personal attack was completely unwarranted.
What’s funny is nobody would have responded as you did in person. It’s easy to call someone a liar from behind a keyboard. I gather an apology won’t be forthcoming.
Oh, are you ever mistaken!
I was reading F. A. Hayek when I was still in high school almost 40 years ago.
I didn’t say that the emmployees should elect the CEO. If a CEO can’t convince 1/2 of the employees of the corporation he runs that he is better than some unknown alternative (i.e. whoever replaces him could be lots worse), then he probably doesn’t deserve to be the CEO.
Huge corporations seem to suffer from the same syndrome that our Republic does. When ownership (or the vote) is sufficiently diffused, it is almost inevitable that a narcissist will wind up in control.
|
"It’s very satisfying to meet a lying anti capitalist lib and call him a punk and a liar to his face."
Sure it is....
|
blah blah blah......
|
Well, you understand sarcasm at least. Hyperbole next?
Also, do you do multi-level marketing? Quixstar, Amway? Do you read a lot of Robert Kiyosaki?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.